Decisions of the Unified Patent Court recorded under "Standard-essential patents and FRAND" in UPC Litigation Watch, the case law database maintained by Dhenne Avocats.
Decisions of the Unified Patent Court concerning standard-essential patents and FRAND commitments: infringement notices, offers and counteroffers, willingness to take a licence, comparable licences, confidentiality of agreements, injunctions and provisional measures.
205 decisions recorded
In a decision of 6 May 2026 given in the joined infringement action and counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_757/2024 and UPC_CFI_539/2025), the Lisbon Local Division held that ASUSTek Computer infringed Ericsson’s EP 2 819 131 (an inductor arrangement reducing oscillator coupling), which expired…
By an order of 20 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_1291/2026), made without hearing the respondents, the Mannheim Local Division prohibits Zhejiang Geely Holding Group and Hangzhou Geely New Energy Vehicle Sales from pursuing before the Chinese courts an application for a worldwide 'interim licence'…
By order of 16 April 2026 (UPC_CoA_54/2026), the Court of Appeal rejects the requests of Belkin International Inc., Belkin B.V. and Belkin Limited for an extension of the time limit to provide the information required by Rule 225(e) or, in the alternative,…
By order of 7 April 2026, the President of the Court of First Instance grants the application of Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications and Orope Germany, defendants in the infringement action brought by Koninklijke KPN on EP 3 349 412 before the Düsseldorf…
In an order of 30 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_12/2026), the Court of Appeal sets aside the orders of the Mannheim Local Division of 27 November 2025 and 16 January 2026 and allows Amazon to take notes of the audio recording of a hearing…
By decision of 27 March 2026, the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division permits the withdrawal, agreed by both sides before the close of the written procedure, of Nokia Technologies’ infringement action on EP 4 250 732 against VIMN Germany and eight…
In a decision of 27 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_1390/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division permits, with the consent of the nine Warner Bros. Discovery defendants, the withdrawal of Nokia's infringement action (EP 4 250 732), declares the proceedings closed and orders…
In an order of 26 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_1234/2025), the Munich Local Division upholds its judge-rapporteur's decision of 27 January 2026 granting the law firm Quinn Emanuel partial, redacted access to the pleadings in Huawei v MediaTek (UPC_CFI_248/2025 and UPC_CFI_668/2025, EP 3 905…
By an order of 16 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_904/2025 and UPC_CoA_905/2025), the Court of Appeal dismissed Vivo's appeals against two orders of the Paris Local Division of 30 October 2025 which, in Sun Patent Trust's infringement actions (EP 3 407 524 and EP…
In a procedural order of 26 February 2026 (UPC_CFI_1235/2025, EP 4 142 215), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division amended his own order of 27 January 2026, which had largely granted the law firm Quinn Emanuel access to the parties' written…
The Munich Local Division upholds the infringement action brought by Koninklijke Philips N.V. against Belkin International, Inc., Belkin B.V.
Access by an employee of the opposing party is necessary where the confidential licence agreements are those on which the patent holder bases its arguments on FRAND terms, a central aspect of the case (para.
Being an employee of a party is not in itself a ground for refusing access to highly confidential information (para. 27). Excluding employees would severely restrict the party’s freedom to choose who represents it and would compromise its right to an effective…
Non-public details of licence negotiations constitute confidential information within the meaning of Rule 262A, and protection may be extended in advance to all future pleadings relating to those negotiations, to avoid repeated orders, each party retaining the option to seek enhanced protection…
A licence agreement concluded with a third party is classified as highly confidential information, access being reserved to three designated persons of the claimant, its economic expert and that expert’s team, and the representatives registered in the parallel proceedings, exhaustively listed.
By order of 29 December 2025 (UPC_CoA_936/2025), the President of the Court of Appeal, sitting as standing judge in a case of extreme urgency under Rule 223.4 RoP, dismissed five Amazon companies' request for suspensive effect against the Mannheim Local Division's order…